"My uninformed guess here is that is that this is really a much-bigger than 35mm lens, with an aperture larger than f1.4."

Is Nick talking about a different lens here or is this just an error in typing? (He goes on to mention 35mm again.. "Will people really pay $3000 for a fixed focal length 35mm lens?" so it isn't clear.)

My uninformed guess here is that is that this is really a much-bigger than 35mm lens, with an aperture larger than f1.4. In other words, you fix the corners by making the image circle bigger and using only the centre, and stopping down a half stop, even wide-open.

Clearly (I thought), the reference to a larger image circle is to suggest that this lens is something more akin to a med. format lens, so bringing to a full frame camera, the same benefits that APS-C cameras get from using lenses designed for 35mm film cameras, namely the central 'sweet spot', avoiding the acuity fall off in the corners that is so common otherwise.

Now if they'd only just do a wide angle of 21mm or wider like this ... maybe it'll be huge but damn it will be good.

I can confirm what Nick said. I too had a chat with the product manager responsible for that lens. He said that there are more lenses to come when things work out as expected. By the way, the bright yellow markings are to make it look like a cine lens. On the latter, it is actually fluoerescent.

Talk to Canon or Nikon about that. No AF is a result of them not cooperating with/permitting Zeiss to interface with their technology. Zeiss can totally make them AF. I would much prefer that too.

Given the other third-party manufacturers have produced Nikon/Canon AF lenses, I always thought that Zeiss decided to free itself from the compromises of internal focusing groups and the trouble needed to make reliable miniature electro-mechanical parts to work with diverse lens protocols. They only need one basic assembly at this point to work with any camera. One supposes this allows them to concentrate more on the optics. These lenses are at a premium price point, such that extra costs would cut away at their market and margins.

Though it is great some companies are recognising the need for better lenses with ever more resolution in small sensors I do wonder who the 'super lenses' are really for.

To realise the benefits I imagine you need to be live view focusing on a solid tripod and the guys that do this will be product/macro/still life and landscape all of which will probably be stopped down to a point where the differences between a canikon lens and a zeiss super lens could be irrelevant. Perhaps focus blending many frames at f/4 and f/5.6?

The people shooting in the f/1.4 to f/5.6 range will be wedding, portrait and maybe fashion/beauty for whom af is the tool of choice. Even if these lenses were af, the phase detect systems (and manufacturing tolerances) we have are not even accurate enough for our current wide aperture af lenses.

These "super lenses" are for exactly who you identify. I don't agree that the main-stream glass is indistinguishable at f8. My Nikkor 50mm f1.4 is crap at prime aperture. I'm planning on throwing it off a moving train. I think the problem is sample variation. My 35mm f1.4G is Leicaesque at its best apertures, so you just never know.

An interesting comparison is Hassy/Phase lenses vs. Rody Digitars. The difference between these lenses, as seen on MF backs is amazing once you've witnessed it. I wouldn't have believed it until I saw it.

These "super lenses" are for exactly who you identify. I don't agree that the main-stream glass is indistinguishable at f8. My Nikkor 50mm f1.4 is crap at prime aperture. I'm planning on throwing it off a moving train. I think the problem is sample variation. My 35mm f1.4G is Leicaesque at its best apertures, so you just never know.

An interesting comparison is Hassy/Phase lenses vs. Rody Digitars. The difference between these lenses, as seen on MF backs is amazing once you've witnessed it. I wouldn't have believed it until I saw it.

True, but I have been using a Zeiss 50mm f2.0 Makro, and it is amazing corner to corner at f5.6 on the D800. I am really not sure to what extend the new 55mm could be significantly superior at the same aperture that would justify it costing 3 times as much.

Bernard, same as you in that because I already have the 50 Makro I'm not interested in the 55. But a WA in the same vein would certainly get my attention. I also have a Zeiss 21, but even if they duplicated this focal length I'd probably still buy it.

....True, but I have been using a Zeiss 50mm f2.0 Makro, and it is amazing corner to corner at f5.6 on the D800. I am really not sure to what extend the new 55mm could be significantly superior at the same aperture that would justify it costing 3 times as much...

Well it is easy to imagine corner to corner sharpness at 1.4 (and maybe also at 50MP) would cost a lot more. If you need it..On the other hand- the nikkor 1,4G 85mm is also very sharp at 1,4 (+autofocus) and still costs 1/3 of the Zeiss.looking for contrasts:We have the LEICA APO-SUMMICRON-M 50 mm f/2 ASPH- 7000 euroand on the other side the Nikkor 1,4G 50mm ( 300 euro) -it is sharp corner to corner at d8, but i do not like the coating - why don't they make a decent 50mm lens? as they make a very nice 85mm?( PS I have had the Zeiss 1,4 ZF that was stellar at f5.6 but liked the nikkor better at 1,4 -also because of its bokeh)